Digging this back up...
RAND Europe, the German economic think-tank ZEW and the German Bertelsmann Foundation have jointly published a study exploring options to save money within the EU in light of the current economic situations. They have drafted three case studies on items with high return value:
- Case Study 1 - Abolishing Common Agricultural Policy
- Case Study 2 - Replacing national embassies and consular service with a joint EU version
- Case Study 3 - Integrating European Land Forces
The study is available for download [here
] (in English). Case Study 3 is covered in detail on pages 80 to 109.
The study basically proposes integrating all European land forces into a single Army, and then cutting this Army to one of three possible force levels (480k, 600k or 750k soldiers, from 890k) while keeping national salary levels for the personnel to save between 3 and 9 billion Euro.
The three force level sizes are evaluated based on two sets of constricts:
a) EUMS headline goal 2010
b) actual force requirements over the past 15 years
It's as usual mostly about deployability and sustainability levels regarding the above. And about how to optimize the force - financially - for maximum return regarding these.
The "middle path" (600k) in this proposed integrative cut is meant to follow currently proposed force cuts in the member states for the same timeframe while keeping the proposed force at a similar size to the US Army. The study proposes investing part of the return into force integration and equipment, and highlights that if fully realized the possible additional investment compared to today would almost be +40% (spending per soldier). (*)
Please note that i'm personally not endorsing this study. Just putting it up for discussion here. I in particular do not necessarily agree with the (stealthed) Atlantic Bridge
ideas and neoliberal underlaying concepts pushed by the study.
In this regard i'd also suggest reading the listings of project team (page 128) and expert group (page 129) first.
(*) - note the little discrepancy between "we could save 6.5 billion Euro here!"
and "this way we could invest 40% more per soldier!"